Intelligent design vs. creationism

With all this hoopla on the news about Creation vs. Evolution with a side dish of �intelligent design� I�ve got a few questions?

What the heck is intelligent design and how is it different than creationism?

Why is one form �okay� to teach in public school and the other not �okay?�

Which one is closer to Genesis?

Please, talk amongst yourselves/

Excellent debate on that here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thanks for the suggestion but it deals to strongly with creationism vs. evolution. I'm not concerned with evolution.

I want to know the difference between creationism and intelligent design.

For me, intelligent design can mean aliens, this whole thing called life is actually a science project, we're in the matrix, ect. Does it mean God or something else?

Best I can tell there isn't any real difference, except in rhetoric.

Some intense creationists might claim the Earth is only a few thousand years old, and that Satan is tricking man on the rest. My impression of "intelligent design" is sort of a softened way of presenting creationism--something like creationism without religion.

Design and creation are two different things, so I suppose that intelligent design could go as far as to consider that evolution could be the mechanism the intelligence (God, for some) used.

Really shouldn't we be presenting all these ideas to kids in schools in attempts to teach them to think for themselves? Christians preaching creationism in the science classroom have forgotten that their religion requires faith, which could be defined as a leap of reason. Science is attempting to find the most reasonable answer to the question. Let's let science rule in the science class.

Here are a couple of sites that might interest you:

skeptic's look at intelligent design

wikipedia - ID

From the wikipedia site:

The phrase "Intelligent Design," was coined by legal scholar Phillip E. Johnson in his 1991 book Darwin on Trial. Johnson's argument, and a key tenet of the ID movement, is that the premise of philosophical naturalism is false. The ID movement presents a case for "reasonable doubt" about the standard scientific model of evolution by natural selection. ID includes arguments that abiogenesis is impossible, that evolution cannot account for the complexity of life, and that the universe is "fine tuned" for living things in a manner that must have been by design.

Now while I haven't read Johnson's book it is my understanding that it is more of an indictment of evolution rather than a scholarly study of "the great unknown designer." My personal opinion on it (and this is just my opinion) is that it allows people to continue to believe in god in spite of any scientific knowledge or advancement.

B

Originally posted by The Big O

For me, intelligent design can mean aliens, this whole thing called life is actually a science project, we're in the matrix, ect. Does it mean God or something else?

First of all Intelligent Design is the same as Creationism with the caviat The universe is just too complex and therefore had to have been created by a "higher being". I don't know about you but I believe the pursuit of science is the attempt to simplify that which is "too complex", and any attempt to deem our physical reality as too complex is to take the easy way out - there is a plethora of information out there that describes succintly complex organizational interaction(from cellular function to socialogical behaviour to universal attraction and repulsion). The informatoin isn't complex if you start with the first word and work your way up.

Second of all, what difference would it make if it were God, aliens, machines, etc.? We still are going to learn what makes things tick to better understand why "things are the way they are". And oddly enough, Evolution is the only one that has physical evidence to be debated and inspected.......

Originally posted by The Big O
What the heck is intelligent design and how is it different than creationism?

Intelligent design is, ironically, one of the old creationist arguements. Paley in his vestiges of Creation' basically laid out its central tennents. Now in tehmodern version, its taken to mean that the structure of biomolecules are too complex to have arisen by chance, and that -that- is proof of supernatural design. Complexity, however, is not an indication of design, so its baseless. Its different from other sorts of creationism only as a matter of degree, not type.

Why is one form �okay� to teach in public school and the other not �okay?�

Apparently none are permited to be taught in schools. I might be wrong about this, I haven't kept up with the very latest court decisions, but the ones I am familiar with that are relevenant to it do not permit ID.

Which one is closer to Genesis?

The biochemists behind IDiocy are completely at odds with genesis, just as much as 'evolutionists' are. Basically, they accept evolution between kinds of animals and even the evolution of man from lower primates, but they feel that a few structures, such as bacterial flagella, are so intricate and complex and 'irreducible' as to be only possible by purposeful and intelligent design. This type of design is supposed to be in opposition to 'natural design', whereing things like natural selection, which IDists accept, result in structures that 'appear designed', but aren't. How they are able to distinguish between complex naturally designed objects and intelligently designed organic objects I don't know. They seem to base it entirely on a claim of personal disbeleif, ie 'I don't see how it could've been formed naturally, therefore it must've been formed by a pre-existing 'thing'"

Please, talk amongst yourselves

Those bacterial flagella, they're like butta.

Intelligent Design is nether intelligent nor designed.

Originally posted by PeaceBeWithYou
Design and creation are two different things, so I suppose that intelligent design could go as far as to consider that evolution could be the mechanism the intelligence (God, for some) used.

No, it requires direct manipulative intervention of an intelligence, otherwise it falls apart. Literally I suppose.

Really shouldn't we be presenting all these ideas to kids in schools in attempts to teach them to think for themselves?

Only when science and other religions are taught in christian sunday schools. Intelligent Design isn't a scientific theory, and thereby doesn't belong in science classes. In a world religion class, sure, or as a topic of discussion in a philopsophy class, especially on epistemology, great. But not as a science course.

bleys
My personal opinion on it (and this is just my opinion) is that it allows people to continue to believe in god in spite of any scientific knowledge or advancement.

Science itself allows people to continue to beleive in god inspite of any scientific advances. Intelligent Design forces people to reject god because of scientific advances. ironic no? But they claim that there is eveidence for divinity in material science, what happens when that evidence is shown to be naturalistic, or at the very least not requiring divine intervention or design? If it supported god before, then it would speak against it. Intelligent Design, in that way, sets a stumbling block for any 'faithless' religion built up upon it.

So is ID somewhat like the diesm?

I think Jefferson was a diest.

It's the belief that some hand/God had created some aspect of existance, but since that initial creation everything else has just sort of taken on a life of it's own. Literally.

Diesm was the only thing near relgious creationism that I personally thought was possible. It made some sense. Perhaps God created earth, maybe even started the evolutionary ladder, and humans popped out of this processes by luck after a while.

Hrmmm... sometime you have to wonder.

Originally posted by The Big O
So is ID somewhat like the diesm?

If Deism were a cynical attempt to foist fundamentalist religion on people sure.

the ID movement has associated with it 'The Wedge Document"

The general way that ID is used is to bring it up at school board meetings, to wrap creationism up in a deceptive cloak of pseudo-science and use it to wedge open the debate on creation v evolution. Once the debate is publically opened, say at a school board or school standards meeting, then ID is dropped and full blown creationism is what is brought in, or pseudo-scientific 'criticism' of evolution (as opposed to say, actual criticism).

It's the belief that some hand/God had created some aspect of existance, but since that initial creation everything else has just sort of taken on a life of it's own. Literally.

I'm not sure if thats what deism is all about, but it has nothing to do with ID. ID states that the 'creator' is active at all stages, and that this is evidenced by structures in nature that are immpossible to have formed naturally. So while we can't detect the influence and work of the creator in most places, we can because something like the bacterial flagellum can't be formed naturally; becuase its too complex to have arised at once or its parts are non functional when taken by themselves.

Okay, so that is the key difference between Deism and ID.

ID says that the "higher power" has their hands in everything.
Deism allows for everything that happens after the intial "creation" to be a matter of chance.

Thanks for helping clear that up.

From Wikipedia:

>

The Union of Reason and Spirituality...Deism

Intelligent Design is compatible with Deism. Creationism is not compatible because that idea was given through revelation, as Deists reject all forms of scripture, superstition, and revelation. Individual reason and empirical observation form the basis of Deist belief.